Some people think that youngsters have to learn how to distinguish between what is right and wrong. I totally agree with this view, and there are some ways of punishment that we can use to deal with children’s wrong behaviour.

For a variety of reasons, it is essential for children to understand the distinction between right and wrong. Firstly, children need to shape their behaviour at an early age so that they will be less likely to violate the law when they grow up. If youngsters are aware that illegal actions always lead to negative consequences, they will behave properly and be discouraged from offences. Secondly, it is beneficial for children to know that proper behaviours usually lead to success. For example, they should know that determination and diligence can help us become successful, while earning easy money by committing crimes just isolates them from their community.

There are some effective ways that adults can apply to punishing children for their wrong acts. The first one is that parents can prohibit children to play games or watch TV for a period of time if they have poor behaviours such as

assaulting their friends. During the period of punishment, parents will explain to their children why these behaviours are considered wrong. In addition, children can be punished by adults forcing them to read moral books instead ofcomic ones, which will raise their awareness of what morality is. In this way, children will gradually understand how to deal with people in a positive manner.

In conclusion, I fully support the view that children need to understand how to act rightly, and they should be given punishment for their wrong acts.

Some people believe that the numbers of students of both genders attending every course at universities should be equal. Personally, I completely disagree with this view.

To begin with, it would be extremely difficult for the numbers of males and females in every subject to be equal. To have the same number of male and female students studying a subject, the universities need to have an equal number of applicants for that subject, and then they will allocate these students into one class. It is almost impossible to manage this process, because the number of students may vary differently based on the nature of the subject. For example, the design is a course that tends to be preferred more by females than by males, while engineering is often chosen by male students rather than female counterparts.

In my opinion, universities should base their admission to their courses on the merits of students instead of their genders. They should select the best candidates for each course according to their qualifications, regardless of the gender of the candidates. This will ensure the fairness for every student who wants to attend university courses. The message to these students is that as long as they work hard enough, they will have the opportunity to study at their desired university. This incentive can result in students making a great deal of effort to study, and in turn, there will be an increasing number of well-educated individuals who can positively contribute to society.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that it would be wrong and unrealistic to base the admission to university courses on genders instead of merits of students. (272 words, band 8.0)

It is true that testing is the primary method used to assess students at schools
and universities. Although this method has its drawbacks, I believe that the
advantages are more significant.

On the one hand, using tests to assess students is advantageous in many ways.
Firstly, although a test often lasts for only two or three hours, it can cover a wide range of knowledge which students learned throughout a course. This is because
students do not know the contents of the test before doing it, so they will have to learn and prepare for a variety of topics before their exam. Secondly, tests and
examinations can create a sense of competitiveness among students. As every
student wants to get high scores and be better than their peers, they will try their
best to study and understand the lessons deeply.

On the other hand, this method of assessment also has some drawbacks. The
first one is that it is difficult to ensure the fairness for every student. While
some students make a great deal of effort to study, others learn nothing and
just cheat in the exams. However, both of them can achieve good results if the
supervisors cannot identify and give penalties to the students who cheat.
Furthermore, the performance of students may vary differently, so the results
of the tests are not always accurate. For instance, if some students feel stressed
on the exam day because of a terrible event happening to them, they cannot perform well. Therefore, their results cannot accurately reflect their ability.

In conclusion, while using tests and examinations to assess students has some
disadvantages, I believe that these are outweighed by its advantages.

Some programs in universities often require students to work in an organization without being paid. This has both advantages and disadvantages.

On the one hand, working during school time is beneficial in various ways. Firstly, working in an organization not only provides students with a great deal of work experience but also helps them improve their communication skills. Secondly, students will have an outlook of the real world when they go to work during academic years, and this helps students become familiar with society after they graduate. Finally, education will be more effective when people have opportunities to apply knowledge to reality. For example, economic concepts are extremely abstract. Therefore, if students are allowed to see how these economic ideas are used in practice, it will be easier for them to imagine and deeply perceive these concepts.

On the other hand, going to work during academic years also has some detrimental effects. One main drawback is that these types of work offer no wages. Students will, therefore, become frustrated easily and in turn, they may drop out of their university. Also, when students spend time working, they will resort to using another amount of time, which otherwise is their leisure, to complete the assignments required. This lifestyle may result in health deterioration in the long-run since students excessively work and study. Another negative impact of this method of education is that students may be exploited by managers of the organization where they work.

In conclusion, while working during academic time provides students with skills and experience, it also brings about several drawbacks which should be taken into account.

The young in some nations tend to take a gap year to work or travel after they graduate from high school. This has both advantages and disadvantages.

On the one hand, taking a gap year is advantageous in several ways. Firstly, by travelling or working in an organization, students will have opportunities to acquire skills and broaden their social understanding. For example, since working involves communicating with people such as colleagues and managers, young people will know how to deal with different kinds of people whereby they can improve their communication skills. Secondly, studying is often stressful and demanding, so students need to take a break after a long time attending high school. Spending a gap year interacting with society not only helps them to relax but it can also give them a better outlook of the real world.

On the other hand, these experiences also have some disadvantages. The first one is that some academic knowledge will be eroded if it is not used for a long time, which can make it difficult for students to study when they pursue university education. For instance, finance is a major that requires a number of mathematic skills, and students taking a gap year will be slower at calculation because they have not done math exercises for a period of time. Another drawback is that students may lose motivations for their study if they start to work. This is because earning money gives them an incentive to continue to work instead of pursuing their studies.

In conclusion, while taking a gap year before attending university benefits students in various ways, it also has some negative impacts on them.

People have different views about whether we should separate prominent children from ordinary ones. While some people believe that it is more effective to give these individuals special treatment, I would argue that we should give all students equal educational opportunities.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why people think that eminent children should be taught separately. The first one is that these students are more intelligent than others, which means they are likely to understand the lessons more deeply and quickly than their peers. Therefore, in order to promote their merits, they should be given opportunities to learn more intensively than normal students. Furthermore, when students with similar capabilities are put into the same environment, they will have the chance to collaborate with others whereby they can progress even further. For example, if intelligent students studied in the same class, they could discuss the solution to a difficult problem with each other, and therefore they could solve it more easily.

On the other hand, I believe that teaching students of different capabilities together brings about more benefits. Firstly, offering children equal education opportunities is a way to ensure the fairness for all of them. The message to these ones is that, as long as they work hard enough, they will be able to achieve good academic results and be better than their peers. Secondly, everyone can become productive members of society if they have the opportunity to develop their strengths. Some students, for instance, are not good at math, but they can perform extremely well in literature. If this ability is developed further, they can become successful writers in their future.

In conclusion, while some people think that we should educate prominent children separately, it seems to me that all students should have equal opportunities.

It is true that a proper
education is still out of reach for the children born in rural parts of
developing countries. While some people suggest building more schools and
sending more teachers to these areas, others would propose the provision of
computers and Internet access. In my personal view, the latter seems more
feasible.

On the one hand, schools and
teachers are still fundamental to the objective of making education accessible to countryside students. Firstly, schools serve a number of purposes
other than providing places for classes. More importantly, schools also
function as meeting places for students to learn the importance of collaborating
and socialising with other people, provide an ideal learning environment for
further study and maintain the discipline of students through regular
attendance. Secondly, owing to poor access to a systematic and constant
education in the first place, students in remote areas are unlikely to study by
themselves effectively. In other words, teachers are required in the learning
process because they can acknowledge these students’ deficiencies and help them
to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving suitable
exercises or even tutoring them privately.

On the other hand, I believe
there are good reasons to supply these rural students with computers and
Internet connection. The first reason is that these devices enable the students
to pursue study programmes despite the fact that these students live in distant
areas. For example, students can use the computer and the Internet to
participate in webinars from universities or work with the teachers through
emails. This idea would seem more feasible than sending teachers to remote
regions to teach. Another reason is that the computer can be a useful learning
tool with educational softwares. There are many computer programmes which
contain a comprehensive course of self-study these days, so that the students
can use these software applications without travelling out of their hometowns.

In conclusion, as people have
their own views in how to provide education for rural students, I think that technology would offer a more plausible solution for the reasons
mentioned.

In several parts of the world,
there is currently a lack of students choosing to study science in universities and colleges. This problem happens due to some reasons, and it can
have some adverse impacts on society.

There are several reasons why fewer
university students are choosing science as their major. Firstly, these subjects are usually more difficult and demanding, which
requires students to put much effort into their study. For example, my friend who is doing a course in
Biology said that he had to onduct too many experiments and complete numerous
projects, which prevented him from having any free time. As a result, science subjects seem to be less
attractive to students compared to economics or business-related subjects.
Secondly, as there are currently fewer employment opportunities available for
graduates in science fields, learners are less likely to decide to select these
majors. Instead, they tend to choose other subjects which allow them to find
jobs more easily.

A shortage of learners in
science fields can result in some negative effects. The first impact is that when fewer students decide to learn about science, there would be a
serious shortage of employees working in these fields. This would lead to fewer
technological developments, which would also prevent improvements in people's
life quality. For instance, it would be difficult for humans to produce newer
smart phones with better functions. Additionally, while a significantly
increasing number of students are choosing economics and business to study, the
number of job vacancies in these areas is limited. Therefore, many university graduates would
have to face unemployment, which increases burden on society.

In conclusion, the shortage of
students choosing science subjects is caused by several factors,
and this problem might bring about serious impacts.

Teaching history for schoolchildren
has been a heated topic constantly. There is a common belief that local history
is more important to children than world history. However, I disagree with this
belief.

I believe the notion that local
history is more valuable than world history should be rejected. Some people may
claim that the insights into the local historical values are completely enough
for one to live. Their argument could be true a few decades ago when most
interpersonal communications were between people of the same race and origin.
However, this view is now outdated, as the world has become globalised and
international business and migrant workers have made any community a global
village. In this context, an understanding of a foreign country’s history would
enable future local workers to reinforce the relationship between them and the
expatriates from that country.

In addition, I am strongly
convinced that children would benefit the most only when the learning of local
history is placed parallel to that of world history. To understand a local
historical event, children should put the regional and sometimes even world
context in that historical era into consideration. For example, children should
acknowledge that the event that Vietnam regained its independence after defeating
the Japanese troops in Indochina in 1945 only happened after a series of
relevant events in the World War II, one of which is the surrender of Japan to
the Allies. In this way of learning, children would understand history more
deeply and thoroughly.

All the existing data has
provided a concrete foundation that the study of local history should always be
parallel to that of world history. This practice would guarantee that children
learn history more comprehensively and be able to tighten the bond with migrant
workers in their country.

It goes without saying that
society always needs a skilled workforce to function. Employees of
different professions contribute
differently to the
thriving of the
community, and therefore
I disagree with the statement that vocational courses should be given
any more weight than before.

The fact that many people deem
it more important to take tertiary education than a vocational training program
has resulted in a shortage of qualified workers. It is universally accepted
that knowledge and qualifications gained from university can help one to have a
head start over other candidates
when it comes
to job hunting.
In Vietnam, for
instance, a majority
of high school graduates are content to spend four to
five years more studying at a university with the hope for a bright career
ahead. This results in a lack of skilled manual workers such as plumbers and
electricians in society.

However, if
we encourage more
people to become
blue-collar workers, then
there will be a
shortage of while-collar workers who may otherwise create more wealth for
society. For example, fewer
engineers would mean
lower productivity; a
dearth of scientists
may inhibit scientific discoveries which can provide us
with a better life in the future. In contrast, those doing blue-collar
jobs may
face redundancy when
too many applicants
compete for the
same position. An unbalanced workforce might, therefore,
hold society back from development in the long term.

In conclusion, the workforce
will adjust itself to cater for the need of the community, so there is no need
to direct young people to follow a particular career path.